BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

and

W.M.P(MD)No.27178 of 2025

M.Somanathan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar,

Thiruverumbur Sub Registrar,

Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. 2.M.Amirudeen

3.N.Pachaiammal

4.N.Murali

5.Malarvizhi

6.Selvarani 7.Kalarani

8.N.City Babu

9.Meenatchi

10.N.Ilaiyaraja ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal

No.RFL/Thiruvarambur/442/2025 dated 14.11.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 13.11.2025 in Temporary Registration No.TP/239479842/2025 and release the same after completion of registration, within time frame as stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R.1

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

2.Sale deed dated 13.11.2025 was executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the second respondent conveying the petition mentioned property. The same was presented for registration. Registration was refused by citing the objection received from one Natarajan. Challenging the stand of the registering authority, this writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner draws my attention to the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by me in W.P(MD)No. 22601 of 2023 (S.Senthil Kumar Vs The Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District & another). Natarajan / objector was shown as the second respondent in the writ petition and he was also heard through his counsel. Subsequently, Natarajan passed away and his legal heirs are on record as respondents 3 to 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal heirs have not come forward to make any objection. In fact, the refusal check slip also refers only to the earlier objections submitted by Thiru.Natarajan.

4.This objection has already been dealt with by me in the aforesaid order. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said order read as follows:

“5.The contesting respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned counsel took me through its contents. The stand of the second respondent is that the petition mentioned plot was part of a larger extent of land and it belonged to Manian Navalangiyar who is none other than the late father of the second respondent. It is beyond dispute that Manian Navalangiyar passed away on 08.03.1997. The petitioner's title rests on the sale deed dated 09.02.2007. It was executed by one Tamilarasi. Tamilarasi executed the sale deed based on the power of attorney executed by Manian Navalangiyar on 06.10.1994. The argument of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that when the principal had passed away, the power of attorney would automatically lapse and therefore, the sale deed executed by the power agent after the demise of the principal is nonest in the eye of law. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 (8) SCC 210 (Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P.Velayutham). The learned counsel for the second respondent would call upon this Court to bear in mind the settled principle of law that fraud would vitiate everything and that a document vitiated by fraud cannot confer any right. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned refusal check slip and dismiss the writ petition.

6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The basic facts put forth by the learned counsel for the second respondent are beyond dispute.